Pubdate: Wed, 18 Dec 2013
Source: Forbes Magazine (US)
Copyright: 2013 Forbes Inc.
Contact:  http://www.forbes.com/forbes/current/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/769
Author: Jacob Sullum

IF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE TO TEENAGERS, WHY
AREN'T THEY LISTENING?

Prohibitionists commonly warn that it's dangerous even to discuss
legalizing marijuana, whether for medical or general use, because such
talk sends "the wrong message" to the youth of America, encouraging
them to smoke pot. If so, you might expect that the legalization of
marijuana in Colorado and Washington, approved by voters more than a
year ago, would have a noticeable impact on marijuana use by teenagers.

Yet the latest data from the government-sponsored Monitoring the
Future Study, released today, indicate that teenagers observed the
momentous events in Colorado and Washington, absorbed the deleterious
message supposedly sent by legalization, and continued smoking pot at
pretty much the same rates as before.

Looking at annual, past-month, and "daily" use (meaning use on 20 or
more of the previous 30 days) among eighth-, 10th-, and 12th-graders,
you can see there were some slight increases and slight decreases, but
none of the changes was stastistically significant. " These findings
should put to rest any claims that reforming marijuana laws and
discussing the benefits will somehow contribute to more teens using
marijuana," says Mason Tvert, director of communications at the
Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). "It's time for prohibition supporters
to stop hiding behind teens when debating marijuana policy."

Maybe not. Even though marijuana use among teenagers was essentially
flat in the most recent survey, USA Today reports that "teens are
shunning synthetic marijuana, such as K2 and Spice, but smoking more
of the real thing"-I guess because that sounded good. "Young people
are getting the wrong message from the medical marijuana and
legalization campaigns," drug czar Gil Kerlikowske says in the USA
Today story. "If it's continued to be talked about as a benign
substance that has no ill effects, we're doing a great disservice to
young people by giving them that message."

You have to give Kerlikowske credit (if that's the right word) for
being completely undaunted by contrary evidence.

It is true that marijuana use among teenagers has been "drifting
higher in recent years" (as the University of Michigan researchers who
oversee the Monitoring the Future Study put it). But this upward drift
began around 2007, whereas the first medical marijuana law
(California's) was enacted in 1996. In between, past-month use among
high school seniors went up and down, but it did not exceed the 1996
rate until 2011, 15 years after cannabis was first legalized for
medical use. It certainly does not look like marijuana reform is
driving increases in adolescent pot smoking.

If you dig a little deeper, comparing cannabis consumption trends in
states with and without medical marijuana laws, there is little
evidence that such legislation boosts pot smoking by teenagers.

A press release from the anti-pot group Project SAM notes with alarm
that "one-third of high school seniors living in medical marijuana
states obtained their marijuana from someone else's medical
recommendation." That's not terribly surprising, given that 70 percent
of people who use narcotic painkillers for nonmedical purposes report
that they got the pills from a relative or friend with a prescription.
That does not mean the government should ban the medical use of
narcotics. In any case, the relevant question is whether this sort of
diversion increases overall marijuana use among teenagers.

If it did, there should be discernible differences in underage
consumption trends between states that allow medical use and states
that don't. So far there aren't.

The potential for diversion to minors will be greater, of course, in
states where pot buyers do not need a doctor's note. At the same time,
it will become more difficult for minors to purchase marijuana
directly as state-licensed stores replace black-market dealers
(assuming that transition is not impeded by excessive taxation and
regulation). On balance, teenagers probably will find that pot is
somewhat easier to obtain, just as alcohol is currently easier for
them to obtain (although harder to buy from a retailer) than marijuana.

I would therefore not be surprised if legalization is accompanied by
an increase in marijuana consumption by teenagers, although not
because of the message it sends so much as the increased access it
brings.

No doubt prohibitionists like Kerlikowske will cite any such increase
as evidence that they were right all along.

But logically speaking, the possibility of diversion to minors does
not count as an argument for criminalizing the production, sale, and
use of marijuana any more than it counts as an argument for
criminalizing the production, sale, and use of alcoholic beverages.

And just as with adults, there is potential here for harm reduction if
more pot smoking means less drinking.

Drinking, by the way, has been declining among teenagers since 1997,
and cigarette smoking is less than half as common among high school
seniors today as it was in 1976 (a downward trend than continued this
year, despite the "gateway" threat allegedly posed by electronic
cigarettes). So even if legalization of marijuana is followed by a
short-term increase in pot smoking by teenagers, prohibition clearly
is not necessary to address the problem of underage consumption. In
fact, prohibition makes it harder to distinguish between adults and
minors by handing over the business to retailers who never bother to
card their customers. Citing the steady declines in underage alcohol
and tobacco consumption, the MPP's Tvert argues that "regulation
clearly works and prohibition has clearly failed when it comes to
protecting teens."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt